unmanage_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and meets it thoroughly. It declares the operation is a write, flags the risk level as high, states the effect (masks monitoring), discloses reversibility via remanage, offers a dry-run preview mechanism, and enforces the no-open-ended-window constraint. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a state-changing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Roughly 100 words organized into a tight tag prefix, a one-line definition, an inverse reference, two behavior constraints, and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place — no filler, no repetition of schema defaults that are already visible. The critical risk/safety information is front-loaded ahead of parameter details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters, zero annotations, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation: it covers purpose, risk, reversibility, parameter semantics, and constraints. The only notable gap is the absence of any statement about what the tool returns on success or failure, which matters for a high-risk write operation but does not block correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: every parameter gets a meaningful explanation. node_id is clarified as a numeric Orion NodeID, start_iso and end_iso get ISO-8601 UTC format semantics with end_iso's required nature re-emphasized, dry_run's preview behavior is explained, and target's config-source and default behavior are documented. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Unmanage a node') and immediately explains the effect ('masks its monitoring'). The inverse relationship to remanage_node is explicitly named, distinguishing it from the closest sibling without requiring the agent to open its schema. The [WRITE][risk=high] prefix further frames the operation's nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description names the key alternative ('Inverse: remanage_node') and gives concrete invocation guidance: pass dry_run=True to preview, and an end time is mandatory since open-ended unmanages are not allowed. It does not explicitly contrast against other overlapping write siblings like mute_alerts or schedule_maintenance, leaving some selection judgment to the agent, but the core routing information is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.